https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/publicservice-2026 Chief Justice, Judicial Council Honor Public Servants of California's Judicial BranchKaren.Datangel Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:22 News Release Chief Justice of California Patricia Guerrero and the Judicial Council of California today mark their fourth annual celebration of Public Service Recognition Week. Said Chief Justice Guerrero: "As we mark the Judicial Council's one hundredth year, we honor those who built and who sustain this constitutional entity, and a judiciary that continues to evolve with the people it serves. As the third branch of government, our commitment remains firm to serve all Californians and uphold the rule of law as a cornerstone of our democracy. I am grateful to the more than 20,000 public servants across our state’s judicial branch who dedicate themselves to these principles every day." Public Service Recognition Week is celebrated annually during the first week of May to honor the people who serve our nation as federal, state, county, local, and tribal government employees. Videos produced by the Judicial Council highlight six of California's dedicated public servants, who speak about why they choose to serve in the judicial branch and with the council. JUDGE BUNMI AWONIYI Judge at the Sacramento Superior Court and council member:   JAYME LEE Associate analyst in the council’s Leadership Support Services office supporting various high-level projects: JAKE CHATTERS Court executive officer at the Placer Superior Court and chair of the council’s Data Analytics Advisory Committee: JAGAN SINGH Deputy director in the council's Facilities Services office, overseeing courthouse construction and modernization projects: JUDGE JUDITH DULCICH Judge at the Kern Superior Court and council member:   MARTHA WRIGHT Manager in the council's Criminal Justice Services office supporting collaborative justice courts, traffic fines and fees, and pretrial services: View all videos on YouTube, including the "We Choose to Serve..." montage. About the Judicial Council of California The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/legal-history-asian-american-pacific-islander-experience-california Legal History of Asian American Pacific Islander Experience in CaliforniaKaren.Datangel Fri, 05/01/2026 - 15:12 Feature The state judicial branch's strategic plan includes the goal of Access, Fairness, Diversity, and Inclusion, where "The makeup of California’s judicial branch will reflect the diversity of the state’s residents." According to the Judicial Council’s latest annual judicial demographics report, the number of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders has slowly increased over the last 18 years. As of Dec. 31, 2025, Asian Americans made up 11.9% of judges in California, compared to 4.4% in 2006, while Pacific Islanders made up 0.2% of judges in California, compared to 0.1% in 2006.  Since taking office in 2019 through 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom made 576 judicial appointments – including 131 in 2024 – from a pool of 1,898 applicants. Of those appointments, 17.3% identify as Asian and 0.8% identify as Pacific Islander. This May, California courts and the Judicial Council of California join the nation in recognizing Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month. If you are not able to view the timeline below, click here. This feature was originally published on May 2, 2024. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-approves-mandatory-reporting-civil-arrests-court-facilities Judicial Council Approves Mandatory Reporting of Civil Arrests in Court FacilitiesCorren, Blaine Fri, 04/24/2026 - 12:44 News Release VIA WEB CONFERENCE—Judicial Council members approved a new rule at their April 24 business meeting that requires courts to report civil arrests—such as those related to federal immigration enforcement actions—that happen in superior court facilities. The new rule aims to help the judicial branch better understand the impacts civil arrests in court facilities have on courts and access to justice and assist the branch in responding to court or community concerns. Sharif Elmallah, court executive officer for the Butte Superior Court, told council members about an incident at the Oroville courthouse where federal agents conducted a day-long enforcement operation and took several people into custody. “When people avoid court facilities out of fear, the court system cannot serve them and cannot function as intended,” said Elmallah, who also serves as co-chair of the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Rules Subcommittee. “That affects the victim seeking protection under the law, witnesses whose testimony may be critical for parties to present their cases, and litigants who depend on their participation.” The new rule says reports should include, if known, the location of the arrest at the court facility, the law enforcement agency that conducted the arrest, whether any individuals were taken into custody, and if the arresting officer presented a judicial warrant. “The goal of rule 10.440 is data collection,” said Judge Scott R. L. Young, co-chair of the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Rules Subcommittee. “The Judicial Council can and should understand where, and how, civil arrest activity occurs.” The rule goes into effect May 1, and courts will start reporting the information on civil arrests in court facilities to the council in June. The council expects to start posting the information on a publicly available dashboard in July. Watch video of this agenda item Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Representation for Children and Families in Dependency Proceedings: The council approved redistributions of court-appointed juvenile dependency counsel funds for fiscal year 2025-26. The allocations promote equitable distribution of resources and support effective representation for children and families in dependency proceedings. After the initial proposal for allocating the unspent dependency counsel funding was submitted to the council, another court identified $150,000 for reallocation. A revised council report will reflect the updated amount of available unspent dependency counsel funding, which increases from $980,773 to $1,130,773. Watch video of this agenda item Appointment of Counsel in Capital Cases: The council received a report from the 2025 Proposition 66 Counsel Working Group, which examined the appointment of attorneys for petitioners in capital habeas corpus proceedings in both the superior courts and the Courts of Appeal. The report provides strategies judicial branch entities could use to recruit and appoint counsel for petitioners in such proceedings, which includes advocating for appellate counsel funding and reactivating regional committees to assist superior courts in their efforts to recruit attorneys to take these cases. Watch video of this agenda item California Access to Justice Commission: The council heard a presentation from the California Access to Justice Commission on how for 30 years it has supported courts, the bar, and justice system stakeholders with research, reports, and support for the expansion of access to justice through legal services, self-help centers, navigators and small claims advisors, remote court services and proceedings, language assistance, libraries, and other community agencies and services. In addition, the council appointed Sacramento County Judge Andi Mudryk to one of the three positions on the commission appointed by the council. Watch video of this agenda item Gender Inclusivity of Juror Identification and Juror Questionnaires: The council adopted a new standard of judicial administration to ensure gender inclusivity in juror identification and juror questionnaires per Assembly Bill 1899 (2024). The council also approved changes to existing rules of court, forms, and standards to ensure language directed to jurors is gender inclusive. Report on Pretrial Programs: The council received the latest report on court pretrial programs and practices that promote safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail. The report includes data on bookings, release types, assessments conducted, the use of monitoring and supportive services, and case closure outcomes. The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center—an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/care-act-behind-numbers-riverside-county-judge-magdalena-cohen The CARE Act: Behind the Numbers with Riverside County Judge Magdalena Cohennatalie.l.ston… Thu, 04/23/2026 - 09:23 Feature CARE court is a non-criminal process that authorizes certain people—such as family members or first responders—to petition a civil court for treatment and services for eligible individuals with mental illness. The following is the first of three articles exploring the perspectives of CARE court judges across California.  Passed by the California legislature in 2022, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act creates civil court proceedings, also known as CARE court, that can provide support for certain adults with severe mental illnesses. In Riverside County, Judge Magdalena Cohen uses her experience as part of the first cohort of CARE court judges to create a welcoming courtroom and maintain full-service partnerships. “We’re doing our very best to make sure as many people as possible get connected to the services they need in hopes that we can see real change,” Judge Cohen says. How CARE Court Works The process begins when an adult files a CARE petition with a civil court. Eligible petitioners include roommates, behavioral health professionals, certain relatives, or first responders. The petition asks the court to determine if an adult with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, or bipolar I with psychotic features, is eligible for a CARE agreement or plan. That person is called the respondent.  Once a petition is filed, the court must determine if the respondent meets the narrow eligibility criteria and if a CARE agreement or plan would be the best option. Sometimes a respondent may not meet the clinical criteria needed for a CARE agreement. Other times, collaborative courts — or courts that can order specific rehabilitation services, like veterans’ court, drug court, or mental health court — may provide more appropriate care.  For eligible respondents, the court supervises the treatment, housing, or other behavioral health services they may receive through the county. Voluntary CARE agreements can help respondents recover and stabilize with autonomy. If a respondent is not able to enter into a voluntary CARE agreement, the court may order a CARE plan, which includes the same general elements and does not involve forced medication or custodial settings like jail. CARE court is unique in allowing — for the first time — certain family and community members to be able to petition a court to help their loved one. Judge Cohen finds that this pathway can help reconnect respondents to their family support, which can be beneficial for both parties. “Families may set boundaries with a loved one for their own safety,” Judge Cohen says. “But if they believe that their loved one may get the treatment or help they need, they’re more open to reengagement. Data suggests that this allows for a respondent’s longer-term stabilization and reintegration into society.”  At the Forefront of CARE Court Riverside County was one of seven counties in California to pilot CARE court in December 2023. As an entirely new case type, Judge Cohen had to prepare despite unknown variables.  “No one knew if on day one we were going to see 100 petitions or none,” Judge Cohen says. “We had to put a lot of infrastructure in place so that regardless of what that number ended up being we could move forward.”   Her court’s main goal was to reduce barriers for respondents. At the forefront of CARE court implementation, Riverside Superior Court had to address issues that weren’t applicable for other court proceedings. Some considerations included protecting the belongings or animals of unhoused respondents while they were at a court appearance or working with the county to increase their bandwidth for remote proceedings.  “Operating CARE court required a different perspective, not just for our court staff, but for our law enforcement and security serving the court,” Judge Cohen explains. “It’s required a new level of flexibility.” Judge Cohen Tries to Reduce Barriers for Respondents Now, Judge Cohen sees an average of 8 respondents a day. Proceedings are mostly informal conversations where she can see what’s going well with the respondent’s CARE agreement, or if they have unaddressed needs. The courtroom itself is small and doesn’t have a jury box. “The space works very well for CARE court,” Judge Cohen says. “Those features reduce some of the barriers and trauma responses for people that have had bad experiences in criminal court.”   Respondents start by coming to court every 30 days, with the option to decrease appearances as they feel ready. However, Judge Cohen finds that many respondents will choose to maintain a 30-day schedule, enjoying the opportunity to talk with her and get a snack from her courtroom’s wide selection.   Finding a Way Forward CARE court works closely with social workers from the Public Defender’s Office and Riverside Behavioral Health to create a full-service partnership. This means coordinating resources to ensure each respondent can achieve the goals in their CARE agreement. For example, county social workers can get respondents into emergency therapy or housing. If there are waitlists for services, the court’s case manager can act as a contact for respondents without a reliable phone number, keeping them on the list.  A CARE agreement creates scaffolding that Judge Cohen hopes will fall away as a respondent becomes more capable of maintaining their own services.  “We always try to figure out who a person was before their diagnosis,” Judge Cohen says. “Oftentimes when a person is diagnosed with a mental illness, everything in their life becomes about the diagnosis, so we’re really trying to connect them back to the things they love to do.”  When a CARE agreement is successfully completed, the respondent graduates from CARE court with a graduation plan. The plan includes the contact information for all the respondent’s providers, such as the full-service clinic, case manager, therapists, or medication providers. Their case manager also remains available.  Additionally, CARE court graduates can create a psychiatric advance directive (PAD). A PAD allows someone to indicate their wishes should they have an episode where they are unable to make decisions.  “In CARE court, we depend on patience, empathy, and a team approach,” Judge Cohen adds. “We rely on our partners’ strengths to maximize a respondent’s potential benefits.”  The Judicial Council's Role in CARE Act Implementation The Judicial Council, the administrative and policymaking body of the California courts, approved rules and forms, including a mandatory petition form, as well as a standard of judicial administration, to support the program. The council also allocated state funding for all courts to implement the CARE Act, as well as funding to the State Bar for representation of respondents by qualified legal services providers and public defenders. Additionally, the council is tasked with collecting program data from superior courts, as well as providing training and technical assistance to judges and court staff. Learn more about the CARE Act. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-consider-appointments-courts-appeal-8 Commission to Consider Appointments to Courts of Appeal natalie.l.ston… Wed, 04/22/2026 - 09:24 News Release The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold in-person hearings in San Francisco on May 22 starting at 9:30 a.m. to consider five appointments by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The commission will consider the following appointments: 9:30 a.m.: Judge Stephen Goorvitch, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles) 10:30 a.m.: Justice Joanne Motoike, as presiding justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Santa Ana)  11:30 a.m.: Judge Amy Guerra, as associate justice of the Fifth Appellate District (Fresno) 12:30 p.m.: Judge Eran M. Bermudez, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division One (San Diego)  1:30 p.m.: Judge Deborah C. Servino, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Santa Ana) The hearing webcast will be streamed live on the California Courts Newsroom. The state Constitution specifies that a gubernatorial appointment to the Court of Appeal is effective when confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.  The commission members who will consider the appointments are California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta; Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild (for the Second Appellate District, Division One, hearing)*; Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez (for the Fourth Appellate District, Divisions One and Three, hearings); and Administrative Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill (for the Fifth Appellate District hearing).  *Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild will appear virtually for the 9:30 a.m. hearing for Judge Stephen Goorvitch. Appointee Biographies Judge Stephen Goorvitch would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Judith T. Ashmann-Gerst. He has served as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge since 2015. Before joining the bench, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, from 2007 to 2015. He was counsel at O’Melveny and Myers from 2003 to 2007. He served as a law clerk in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California from 2001 to 2003. He served as a staff attorney in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 1998 to 2001. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Justice Joanne Motoike would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary. She has served as an associate justice in the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, since 2022. She served as an Orange County Superior Court judge from 2013 to 2022. Before joining the bench, she was a senior deputy public defender in Orange County from 2008 to 2013. She also worked as a trial attorney at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal from 2006 to 2008. She received her Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School.  Judge Amy Guerra would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Bruce Smith. She has served as a judge in the Fresno County Superior Court since 2018. Before joining the bench, she worked as the chief defense attorney at the Fresno County Alternate Defense Office from 2014 to 2018 and as an associate with the office from 2007 to 2014. She received her Juris Doctor from the San Joaquin College of Law.  Judge Eran M. Bermudez would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Richard D. Huffman. She has served as a judge in the Imperial County Superior Court since 2018. Before joining the bench, she worked as a compliance resolution officer at the University of California, San Diego, from 2016 to 2018 and in private practice from 2005 to 2016. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Judge Deborah C. Servino would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Thomas M. Goethals. She has served as a judge in the Orange County Superior Court since 2009. Before joining the bench, she served as a deputy attorney general at the California Attorney General’s Office from 1997 to 2009. Previously, she worked in private practice and as a law clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1995 to 1997. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.   Testimony and Comment Requests to testify or written comments on the appointment must be received by the commission no later than 5 p.m. on May 15 (five court days prior to hearing). Anyone wishing to testify before the commission must state that request in writing and include a summary of the facts on which any testimony or opinion will be based.   Submissions via email to coja@jud.ca.gov are strongly encouraged. Hard copies are not required.   If you would like to mail your request, you may also reach the commission at:   Commission on Judicial Appointments   c/o Chief Justice of California   Supreme Court of California   350 McAllister Street   San Francisco, California 94102   Attention: Secretary to the Commission   Guidelines for the Commission on Judicial Appointments are published in the appendix to the California Rules of Court and are posted on the California Courts website. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-consider-mandatory-reporting-civil-arrests-court-facilities Judicial Council to Consider Mandatory Reporting of Civil Arrests in Court FacilitiesCorren, Blaine Fri, 04/17/2026 - 15:57 News Release VIA WEB CONFERENCE—Judicial Council members will consider a new rule at their April 24 business meeting that would require courts to report civil arrests—such as those related to federal immigration enforcement actions—that happen in superior court facilities. The proposed rule aims to help the judicial branch better understand the impacts civil arrests in court facilities have on courts and access to justice, as well as assist the branch in responding to court or community concerns. Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Report on Pretrial Programs: The council will consider the latest report on court pretrial programs and practices that promote safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail. The report includes data on bookings, release types, assessments conducted, the use of monitoring and supportive services, and case closure outcomes. Gender Inclusivity of Juror Identification and Juror Questionnaires: The council will consider adopting a new standard of judicial administration to ensure gender inclusivity in juror identification and juror questionnaires per Assembly Bill 1899 (2024). The proposal also recommends changes to existing rules of court, forms, and standards that currently use language directed to jurors that is not gender inclusive. Appointment of Counsel in Capital Cases: The council will receive a report from its 2025 Proposition 66 Counsel Working Group, which examined the appointment of counsel for petitioners in capital habeas corpus proceedings in both the superior courts and the Courts of Appeal. The report will summarize information the working group received from speakers with experience in capital habeas corpus proceedings and provide suggestions that judicial branch entities may consider in their efforts to recruit and appoint counsel for petitioners in such proceedings. California Access to Justice Commission: The council will hear a presentation from the California Access to Justice Commission, which works with courts, the bar, and justice system stakeholders to expand access to justice through legal services, self-help centers, navigators and small claims advisors, language assistance, libraries, and other community agencies and services. The complete council meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center. A link to a live webcast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website on the day of the meeting. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/care-act-behind-numbers-alameda-county-judge-sandra-bean The CARE Act: Behind the Numbers with Alameda County Judge Sandra Beannatalie.l.ston… Thu, 04/16/2026 - 10:13 Feature CARE court is a non-criminal process that authorizes certain people—such as family members or first responders—to petition a civil court for treatment and services for eligible individuals with mental illness. The following is the second of three articles exploring the perspectives of CARE court judges across California.  Passed by the California legislature in 2022, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act creates civil court proceedings, also known as CARE court, that can provide support for certain adults with severe mental illnesses. In Alameda County, Judge Sandra Bean works closely with other public agencies to best support the people appearing in her courtroom. “You do everything you can to try and make things work,” Judge Bean says. How CARE Court Works The process begins when an adult files a CARE petition with a civil court. Eligible petitioners include roommates, behavioral health professionals, certain relatives, or first responders. The petition asks the court to determine if an adult with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, or bipolar I with psychotic features, is eligible for a CARE agreement or plan. That person is called the respondent. Once a petition is filed, the court must determine if the respondent meets the narrow eligibility criteria and if a CARE agreement or plan would be the best option. Sometimes a respondent may not meet the clinical criteria needed for a CARE agreement. Other times, collaborative courts — or courts that can order specific rehabilitation services, like veterans’ court, drug court, or mental health court — may provide more appropriate care. For eligible respondents, the court supervises the treatment, housing, or other behavioral health services they may receive through the county. As a voluntary program, CARE agreements can help respondents recover and stabilize with autonomy. While the court can order a CARE plan, which includes the same general elements and does not involve forced medication or custodial settings like jail, Alameda County only pursues agreements with respondents. “We think it’s very important for the respondent to agree," Judge Bean says. "It speaks to the whole philosophy of CARE court, which is a voluntary program." Finding Creative Solutions With over 210 CARE petitions filed as of December 2025 in Alameda County, Judge Bean must first consider whether the petition assigned to her has the required elements needed to move forward. In her experience, if a petition is dismissed, it’s usually because the respondent is unwilling to enter into a CARE agreement, is already working with behavioral health agencies, or they can’t be found. Even if Judge Bean thinks a petition won’t result in a CARE agreement, she still schedules a court date. “I’m not going to say no,” Judge Bean says. “I’m going to try to help, even if a petition doesn’t meet the criteria.” At these hearings, Judge Bean, the respondent, and Alameda County Behavioral Health discuss what other programs might be the right fit.  For respondents that are eligible for CARE agreements, Judge Bean uses creative problem solving to ensure respondents receive all their benefits. Last month, she helped launch a pilot program with her court’s Self-Help Center to help respondents with CARE agreements fill out benefit forms. “Social workers can fill out benefit forms, but it’s not really their forte,” Judge Bean says. “The Self-Help Center has great experience with filling out forms and some of the staff are lawyers, so they are very good at it." When a respondent comes to court, Judge Bean can send them to the onsite Self-Help Center the same day to apply for benefits like food assistance, supplemental security income, or general assistance. To get the pilot program started, Judge Bean asked her presiding judge if they could use some of their budget to temporarily fund a position at the Self-Help Center specifically to support CARE court users, including petitioners. “We’ve been really focused on making sure that our respondents with CARE agreements get all the benefits they’re entitled to,” Judge Bean adds. Sometimes, the solution can be as simple as getting the respondent an email address. At the Self-Help Center, the case worker from a local organization, such as Bay Area Community Services, can provide email addresses that can be used to register for benefits. Collaboration Across the State  CARE court was first implemented in Alameda County in December 2024. In the year ahead of implementation, Judge Bean and other CARE court judges prepared themselves as much as possible. They visited Orange, San Diego, and San Francisco counties — some of the first counties to pilot CARE court — to see live hearings and learn about their business processes. In addition, Alameda County Behavioral Health partnered with the Indigo Project, a mental health services consultant, to help facilitate planning meetings between their department, CARE court judges, public defenders, and county counsel. “Those meetings gave us an opportunity to get very comfortable with each other and develop some trust,” Judge Bean says. Now having presided over her own CARE court proceedings, she shares the knowledge she’s developed with others. “I never turn down requests to come and talk about the CARE Act with folks,” Judge Bean says. “We want to make sure that we turn over every rock to see if there are more people in the community who may need help.” Recently, Judge Bean and the public defender have done educational presentations about the CARE Act for the Livermore fire and police departments, the East County Bar Association, and estate and trust lawyers. As CARE court evolves, Judge Bean hopes that sharing resources and experience will continue to streamline opportunities for respondents to receive support. “There’s a lot of variation in what’s happening with respondents from day-to-day, from week-to-week,” Judge Bean says. “Every county in California is working really hard to help people.” The Judicial Council's Role in CARE Act Implementation The Judicial Council, the administrative and policymaking body of the California courts, approved rules and forms, including a mandatory petition form, as well as a standard of judicial administration, to support the program. The council also allocated state funding for all courts to implement the CARE Act, as well as funding to the State Bar for representation of respondents by qualified legal services providers and public defenders. Additionally, the council is tasked with collecting program data from superior courts, as well as providing training and technical assistance to judges and court staff. Learn more about the CARE Act. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/care-act-behind-numbers-san-joaquin-county-judge-jayne-lee The CARE Act: Behind the Numbers with San Joaquin County Judge Jayne Leenatalie.l.ston… Thu, 04/09/2026 - 15:53 Feature CARE court is a non-criminal process that authorizes certain people—such as family members or first responders—to petition a civil court for treatment and services for eligible individuals with mental illness. The following is the first of three articles exploring the perspectives of CARE court judges across California.  Passed by the California legislature in 2022, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act creates civil court proceedings, also known as CARE court, that can provide support for certain adults with severe mental illnesses. In San Joaquin County, Judge Jayne Lee finds that human connection and patience are key tools in the success of CARE court.  “Once someone’s engaged, the results have been amazing,” Judge Lee said. She’s presided over almost all the petitions filed in San Joaquin County’s CARE court since it was first implemented there in December 2024.  How CARE Court Works  The process begins when an adult files a CARE petition with a civil court. Eligible petitioners include roommates, behavioral health professionals, certain relatives, or first responders. The petition asks the court to determine if an adult with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, or bipolar I with psychotic features, is eligible for a CARE agreement or plan. That person is called the respondent.  Once a petition is filed, the court must determine whether the respondent meets the eligibility criteria and whether a CARE agreement or plan would be the best option. Sometimes, a respondent may not meet the clinical criteria needed for a CARE agreement. Other times, collaborative courts — or courts that can order specific rehabilitation services, like veterans’ court, drug court, or mental health court — may provide more appropriate care.  “The CARE Act was designed as an upstream intervention to help people before they’re placed in a more restrictive situation, like LPS conservatorship or jail,” Judge Lee explains. For eligible respondents, the court supervises the treatment, housing, or other behavioral health services they may receive through the county. As a voluntary program, CARE agreements can help respondents recover and stabilize with autonomy. If a respondent is not able to enter into a voluntary CARE agreement, the court may order a CARE plan, which includes the same general elements and does not involve forced medication or custodial settings like jail.  “Either people are really engaged, or they’re not,” adds Judge Lee. “Once someone is really engaged, having a voluntary agreement creates an affirming space to pursue their own best interest," Judge Lee says.   Judge Lee Takes a Personal Approach Judge Lee tries to create a relationship with each respondent. If someone doesn’t follow their CARE agreement or plan, she looks at the obstacles that may be preventing them from participating. This can mean searching for someone in the respondent’s community that they trust to contact them, asking the case manager to visit the respondent more often, or even finding a different case manager who may connect better. She also tries to get her respondents into supportive housing as soon as possible, but it isn’t always immediately available.  “It’s about getting beyond survival and being able to flourish,” Judge Lee says. “It’s huge for people to be able to work again, to reconnect with their family, to learn to be a good parent.”   Judge Lee learns each respondent’s dreams for the future, what makes them happy, and what makes them fulfilled; then, she figures out how to make it possible. Some of her respondents have gotten jobs, gone back to college, or aspire to become social workers or lawyers to help other court users.  The CARE Act Process Can Take Time The process isn’t always fast or easy.  Before San Joaquin County implemented CARE court, Judge Lee was trained by therapists and took classes offered by the Judicial Council. She also spoke to judges from the seven California counties that piloted CARE court in 2023, a year before her county did. The best advice she received was to have patience and to learn to engage.  “It’s going to be a cycle,” she says. “Sometimes people might get rearrested. Sometimes people might not continue with their agreement. You can’t give up the first time someone says they’re not interested. You must be willing to be there and have your door open.”  Ultimately, Judge Lee recognizes that the CARE Act is a voluntary system. By making a respondent’s well-being a matter of the court, her goal is not to intimidate people into accepting treatment.  Instead, she views the process as an opportunity to use the court’s authority to coordinate services with public agencies. When she orders reports on why a respondent can’t find housing in a sober living environment or orders a case manager to visit them more often, those public agencies must comply. With the right resources and outreach, she hopes people will eventually find a path to recovery in her courtroom. “I think I’ve become a better judge because of CARE court. I think I’ve become a better person, too, because I’ve learned patience,” Judge Lee says. The Judicial Council's Role in CARE Act Implementation The Judicial Council, the administrative and policymaking body of the California courts, approved rules and forms, including a mandatory petition form, as well as a standard of judicial administration, to support the program. The council also allocated state funding for all courts to implement the CARE Act, as well as funding to the State Bar for representation of respondents by qualified legal services providers and public defenders. Additionally, the council is tasked with collecting program data from superior courts, as well as providing training and technical assistance to judges and court staff. Learn more about the CARE Act. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/justice-kelli-evans-and-justice-stacy-boulware-eurie-share-perspectives-diversity-courts Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie Share Perspectives on Diversity in the CourtsKaren.Datangel Wed, 03/25/2026 - 14:58 Feature Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie began their journeys in law as students at UC Davis at similar times, but neither expected their rise to the bench in California's appellate courts, as they first recounted in a conversation with each other during the Black History Month 2026 Closing Ceremony at the Judicial Council on Feb. 25. "As an attorney, I hoped and thought that one day I would eventually like to become a judge, so when I got appointed to the Alameda County court trial bench, I thought I had made it...and I would have happily retired there," said Justice Evans, associate justice of the California Supreme Court. "It was a surprise when I got the call from the governor saying he wanted to elevate me to the California Supreme Court." "While in law school, I dreamt of being a trial judge and when I was appointed in 2007 [to the Sacramento Superior Court], it was literally a dream come true," said Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, associate justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. "There's no way I could have anticipated or predicted the current seat I hold." The two justices shared the stage to discuss insights on diversity and inclusion in the courts, access to justice, the roles of judicial officers and court staff, and other topics. Following are highlights from their conversation. On the role of jurists in honoring diversity and inclusion Justice Evans: When I think about inclusion in particular, I think what it means is making sure people feel seen and are seen, feel heard and are heard, have a shot at opportunities, and in the court system, that they feel like it really works for them. Individual judges can do things in their courtrooms that embody these values. From the bench, you can treat all litigants with respect, make sure that you're implementing procedural justice in your courtroom. You can make sure you're using inclusive and accessible language. You can make sure you're explaining your decisions clearly, particularly to the person on the losing side of the decision. You can do things at a leadership level, like advocate for policies that help promote diversity and inclusion. Another thing judges and individuals can do is community outreach and engagement. The more that our communities understand about the justice business, the better it is for our court system and the more likely we are to have diverse and inclusive court systems. If we help everyone to understand they have a stake in it, they have an opportunity to participate in a system that can and should work for everyone. Justice Boulware Eurie: We're all familiar with systemic opportunities and/or barriers for diversity and inclusion, but I also think there's an individual level of opportunity and obligation to see who's at that proverbial table. No entity or structure is perfect but I do think our branch in particular is a mirror to society. The folks that come in through courthouse doors, those folks who support the work of the trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court reflect and should reflect California's citizenry. On the importance of diversity of perspectives and experiences in courts Justice Evans: In the California Supreme Court, we have seven justices who are responsible for making decisions that impact all 40 million of us in California. When you have people at that table who have diverse experiences like people who have been defense attorneys, have represented civil rights litigants, worked with law enforcement their whole lives, been subjects of racial profiling, have family members who have been incarcerated, or have been career prosecutors, that's a very rich discussion and it brings voices to the table that have long been missing. When I talk about diversity, I'm not just talking about race, gender, or sexual orientation - I'm talking about life experience, geography, practice areas, income, all sorts of things. I think it's important in the trial courts if not more important at the appellate court levels. The more people with nuanced perspectives who are part of a conversation, we'll have fewer blind spot errors, and we'll have a better understanding of potential impacts on various communities. Justice Boulware Eurie: When we talk about an impartial court and fair and balanced justice, I think some of that comes from diversity of thought, not just traditional values or experiences. Are there voices that are ensuring a check on the system and as drivers of procedural justice, that it's not just one voice being heard? Is there space for different perspectives and values on how the law is interpreted? I think it looks different in a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court because it's not a single individual judge making all the decisions in a courtroom. In the trial court, those different [perspectives can come from] roles of the prosecutor or public defender, or parents' counsel, minor's counsel, and county counsel. I'm pretty proud of California's courts because I think our branch is embracing the opportunities we're talking about. I thought about language and diversity of perspectives. In juvenile court, when we're dealing with children who are removed from their homes - particularly Black families and communities - we may hear "Hey, that's my cousin." You might later figure out "That's my play cousin" and having a bench officer who understands community relationships and ties that exist beyond blood helps to inform the decision-making in about what's in the best interest of the child. This is just one example of a type of diversity of experience and the opportunity for more informed decision making when you are hearing from and learning about different experiences. On court staff Justice Evans: Our clerks are procedural guardians. Our research attorneys carry an enormously important load as first line filters for the judges and justices for what's coming in and they often go through incredibly voluminous records. There are other court staff like interpreters, reporters, and self-help attorneys. There are court administrators who are doing work that make our courts accessible to the public. Our librarians are facilitating all of our access to material that we need to do our jobs. We've got court security personnel that are protecting our litigants and jurors. Sometimes this work is done under immense time pressure and public scrutiny. We're in a system full of unsung heroes. People know about judges, but people also need to know about the essential roles in our justice system that make it possible to seek and obtain justice. I also know that the more people learn about these roles - young people in particular - the more they're interested in our work. Young people may not be interested in becoming a lawyer or a judge, but would be really interested in one of these other roles. So the more we can share that information, the better. Justice Boulware Eurie: The one role I want to highlight is IT (Information Technology). In the Sacramento Superior Court in the period during COVID, we were spreading jurors out in different courtrooms and utilizing Zoom for them to hear and participate in selection. We had one particular IT member who was running from courtroom to courtroom, standing in the back -- not just to make sure the Zoom and speakers were working, but to make sure we could all be heard clearly. He was trying to stand in the shoes of the user, hearing what was happening in that courtroom or a different courtroom so there was meaningful participation. We know remote access is something the branch is very committed to and is super important. Advice for law students and aspiring lawyers Justice Boulware Eurie: Keep an open mind. I think a lot of people attend law school and go in with this vision of what it is that they want to do and just like undergrad, it's an opportunity for exploration. There will be an opportunity to learn so many substantive areas that you may not have been familiar with. As it relates to this conversation [around diversity and inclusion], I think of the growing importance of environmental law and looking at the demographics of law schools and who participates in those programs -- often I don't see people of color. Look not only where you can participate, but who can you bring along? What other spaces, clinicals, programs, and internships might you and your peers participate in? Is it always the same folks raising their hands? Is there a way you can nudge a colleague or peer to join you in a lunchtime conversation with a professor on a topic that you might otherwise think is dry as sand? Challenge yourself by learning something new in terms of perspective, life background, and the law. Justice Evans: Do what interests you. It might not be what everyone else is doing. Find people that you think are doing things that are interesting and exciting, and reach out to them and learn more. Try lots of different things and stay flexible. There's lot of different ways to be happy in any career but especially as a lawyer. Watch Justice Evans and Justice Boulware Eurie's full conversation. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-associate-justice-howard-b-wiener In Memoriam: Associate Justice Howard B. WienerMartin.Novitski Tue, 03/24/2026 - 12:54 News Release Former Associate Justice Howard B. Wiener of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, passed away on March 20, 2026.  Justice Wiener was born in Providence, Rhode Island on February 1, 1931, attending public schools there. He graduated from Brown University in 1952 with a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy.  Three years later, he obtained his law degree from Harvard University Law School. Following graduation from law school, Justice Wiener and his wife Joan moved to California, where he served as a law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Harrison in Los Angeles from 1955 to 1956.  He was admitted to the California Bar in January 1956. During the next 20 years, he practiced law in a small firm in West Covina, handling all types of cases.  He was also active in the legal community, serving as President of the Pomona Valley Bar Association in 1968, on the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles County Bar Association from 1969 to 1971, and on the State Bar Board of Governors from 1972 to 1975 (Vice President, 1974-1975). On July 25, 1975, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed him to the San Bernardino County Superior Court.  Roughly three years later in May 1978, the Governor selected him to be an Associate Justice on Division One of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District in San Diego.  Over the next 15 years, Justice Wiener became known for clear and thoughtful opinions that adapted and applied legal principles to compassionately serve the interests of people from all walks of life. Despite practicing law in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, Justice Wiener quickly became active in the San Diego legal community, serving as President of the William B. Enright American Inn of Court from 1991 to 1993 and later as one of its four distinguished emeritus members.  In 2018 he was honored by all five San Diego Inn of Court chapters with the second-ever lifetime achievement award.  A vocal advocate for education at every level and a mentor for many younger lawyers, Justice Wiener was an adjunct professor at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law (1979-1986) and California Western School of Law (1986-1994), teaching professional responsibility and appellate advocacy respectively.  He also served as Chair of the Board of Visitors at USD Law School.  In 1982 he obtained a Master of Laws Degree in judicial process from the University of Virginia Law School. Justice Wiener retired from the Court on December 31, 1993.  Beginning in 1994, he was actively engaged in private dispute resolution, serving in more than 1,700 cases as a mediator, arbitrator and private judge.  He is co-author with Jon B. Eisenberg and Ellis J. Horvitz of the California Civil Practice Guide, Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group.  In 2007, he was interviewed for the California Appellate Courts Legacy Project.  The interview is available at California Appellate Court Legacy Project | District Courts of Appeal. Justice Wiener was preceded by his wife Joan, and is survived by his son Daniel, daughters Anne and Carrie, five grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren.